Perhaps the strongest evidence for annihilationism is found in the biblical language of destruction. The Bible unambiguously teaches that the lost will be destroyed.

One of the most frequently cited texts in this regard is Matthew 10:28, which says, “Don’t fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul; rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Jesus is clearly contrasting those who cannotkill the soul with God who cando so.

Of course, Jesus does not say explicitly that God willdestroy body and soul in hell, only that he cando so. When John said that “God is ableto raise up children for Abraham from these stones” (Matthew 3:9), we do not assume that he actually did so. He could havedone so, but there is no indication that he actually did. Similarly, just because God isableto destroy the soul in hell doesn’t automatically mean that he intends to do so.

Still, the force of Jesus’ words is lost somewhat if we take them hypothetically. Why would you fear someone who can hypothetically kill the body when he has no intention of doing so? Everyone hypothetically has the ability to kill the body, but we do not fear everyone we meet. We do fear those who actually threaten us with bodily harm. Similarly, the exhortation to fear the one who can destroy the soul makes most sense if that is what he has actually “threatened” to do.

Happily, Matthew 10:28 is not the only text in Scripture that speaks to the ultimate destruction of the wicked. Let’s consider a few other texts and read the language as we would ordinarily read it.

Destruction in the Old Testament

It is often claimed that, with a small handful of exceptions, the Old Testament does not really contribute to our understanding of final judgment. While it is true that the Old Testament does not portray, in intricate detail, events surrounding the final judgment, there are a host of texts that speak of the end of the wicked.

Psalm 1 speaks of the wicked being “like chaff that the wind blows away” and states that the way of the wicked “leads to ruin” (“will perish” in the ESV) (vv. 4–6). Psalm 37 speaks of the wicked withering and dying like plants (vv. 1–2), vanishing from the face of the earth (vv. 9–10), being killed (v. 15), and vanishing like smoke (vv. 20–21). In short, “transgressors will all be eliminated” (v. 38). Psalm 68 pictures God’s enemies being driven away like smoke and melting like wax (vv. 1–2). Obadiah prophesied a time when God’s enemies will “be as though they had never been” (v. 16).

Traditionalists sometimes argue that these are references to temporal judgment, but that argument must be proven rather than merely asserted. The fact is, the Old Testament is filled with statements that speak to the utter destruction of the wicked.

Destruction in the New Testament

The New Testament is as replete as the Old Testament with references to destruction. Jesus spoke about the narrow gate that leads to “life” and the wide gate that leads to “destruction” (Matthew 7:13–14). Trees that do not bear fruit are “cut down and thrown into the fire” (v. 19). Trees thrown into a fire are entirely consumed. Interpreting the parable of the weeds, Jesus said,

Therefore, just as the weeds are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom all who cause sin and those guilty of lawlessness. They will throw them into the blazing furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

(Matthew 13:40–42)

The “blazing furnace” here is likened to a fire into which “weeds are gathered and burned.” When weeds are burned, they are consumed and destroyed; they do not burn without end.

Romans 6:23 asserts that the wages of sin is “death.” If we take the text at face value, we must conclude that sin leads to annihilation, not to everlasting torment. John 3:16 speaks of dual destinies: Those who believe will inherit eternal life, while those who do not believe will “perish.” The plain meaning of the word “perish” is obvious.

Second Thessalonians 1:7–9 speaks of “those who don’t know God” and “those who don’t obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” suffering “the penalty of eternal destruction.” We must read this language contrary to its plain meaning to conclude that “destruction” actually means eternal existence in torment.

Second Peter 2:6 says that Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of what is going to happen to the ungodly. And in what way are they examples? In that God turned them to “ashes” and “condemned them to extinction.” Eternal conscious suffering is difficult to square with people being turned to ashes and condemned to extinction.

A Traditionalist Response

Traditionalism does not read the biblical language of destruction in its plain sense. For the traditionalist, “death” does not really mean death, “perish” does not really mean perish, and “destroy” does not really mean destroy. Instead, each of these words is made to mean, in one way or another, eternal existence in conscious torment.

Don Carson is one example of a traditionalist who argues counterintuitively. He looks at 2 Peter 3:7, which speaks of “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.” He begins with an admission: “Fair exegesis of the words involved suggests totaldestruction, i.e. cessation of existence.” However, he considers this conclusion to be “too hasty.” The word translated “destruction” has “a range of meanings, depending on the context.” The same word is used in the New Testament of a lost coin and a ruined wineskin. Neither of these things was completely destroyed, and so we might understand the word to speak of ruin or loss rather than complete destruction.¹Don Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism(Leicester: Apollos, 1996), 519–22.

Traditionalists often argue along these very lines. But Carson is right: The context must determine the meaning.

For example, when Matthew 7:13–14 contrasts “life” with “destruction,” is there any good reason, contextually, to think that “destruction” does not mean the opposite of life? If “ruin” is the best contextual meaning of the word, why do translators, who are proficient in their understanding of Greek, not reflect that?²English Bible translations overwhelmingly translate the word in Matthew 7:13–14 as “destruction.” See ESV, KJV, NIV, NKJV, etc. And that particular text is just one example. The language of destruction is used widely in the New Testament, and translators consistently translate it to reflect total destruction rather than mere ruin.

In fact, to return to Carson’s example, 2 Peter 3:6 uses the same word when it speaks of the world that “perished” in the flood. Those who came under God’s judgment in the flood died, they were not merely ruined. It is that very example that serves as the template for “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.” Carson is correct: The context must determine the meaning, and the context of 2 Peter 3:6–7 determines the meaning quite clearly.

Edward Fudge summarizes:

If we ignore the Bible’s own use of its language, we can make these terms mean whatever we please. But if we let the Bible interpret itself, we have far less choice. For all of Scripture’s language on this subject leads us time and time again to the same conclusion: the wicked will finally perish completely and forever in hell.³Edward William Fudge, Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism, eds. Christopher M. Date, Gregory G. Stump, and Joshua W. Anderson(Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 41.

John Stackhouse concurs: “We therefore must be careful not to interpret phrases that sound pretty plainly like termination to somehow mean not destroyed and not dead, but instead ‘kept painfully alive forever.’”⁴John G. Stackhouse, Jr., Four Views on Hell: Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 75. If we allow the text of Scripture to speak for itself, it will naturally lead us to conclude that the destiny of the wicked is death.